1 Rizal’s 1890 edition of Morga’s “Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas,” p. 297, et seq.
2 “Sucesos,” p. 300.
3 Ibid., p. 305.
4 “The Filipino People,” Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 15, September, 1913.
5 On July 15, 1913, I published an official report, as secretary of the interior, on “Slavery and Peonage in the Philippine Islands.” It is hereinafter referred to in foot-notes under the title of “Slavery and Peonage.” Beginning on p. 84 of this document will be found extracts from court records showing convictions obtained under this act, which is quoted in full on p. 83 of the same document.
6 For the full text of this interesting and important report see “Slavery and Peonage,” p. 85.
7 This valley includes the Provinces of Cagayan and Isabela.
8 For the full text of this document see “Slavery and Peonage,” pp. 12–14.
9 1913.
10 For the full text of this document see “Slavery and Peonage,” pp. 23–25.
11 “Respectfully returned to the Honourable the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, with the following opinion:
“The acts given in the attached letter of the Provincial Governor of Nueva Vizcaya, dated September 14, 1905, in so far as they refer to the purchase and sale of human beings, are not provided for or punished under the existing Penal Code; but such actions are punishable under that Code when they constitute either the kidnapping of a minor, illegal detention or serious threats, according to sections 481, 484 and 494 thereof.
“Therefore, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of the letter of the said Provincial Governor, I am of the opinion that not only the Igorrotes who stole the Igorrote boy, but also those who received and sold him, as well as the woman who bought him for forty pesos, are guilty of illegal detention. The latter is furthermore guilty of grave threats, inasmuch as she threatened to kill the purchased Igorrote if he tried to escape from her service.
“With reference to paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the attached letter, I believe that those who stole the little Igorrote and also the woman Antonia, who sold him when knowing him to have been kidnapped, are guilty of the offence of illegal detention.
“If the boy who was stolen and sold, referred to in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the enclosed letter, was under seven years of age, then those who stole him are guilty of the offence of kidnapping a minor, and the Igorrote woman, Antonia, and the wife of Señor Arriola, the Clerk of the Court, are accomplices in the crime. But if the child was over seven years old, then the offence would be illegal detention. The same may be said of the case recounted in paragraphs 14 and 15 of this communication. The parties who stole, sold and bought the little Igorrote are guilty of kidnapping a minor or of illegal detention according to the age of the victim.
“The acts committed by Captain Vicente Tomang, referred to in paragraph 16 of this letter, are punishable both as a serious threat and as illegal detention, because he unlawfully deprived the two Igorrote women of their liberty when they desired to leave his service, for which purpose he threatened to kill them.
“Although not asked for in the indorsement to which this is a reply, I venture to suggest that the Igorrotes who armed themselves and formed a band for the purpose of kidnapping persons for subsequent sale, be punished under Act 1121, which penalizes as bandolerismo the abduction of persons for any purpose, even though there may be no extortion or ransom demanded, if the abduction be done by an armed band.
(Signed) “L. R.
Wilfley,
“Attorney-General.”
12 Also written “Jamaya.”
13 Republished in “Slavery and Peonage,” pp. 37–39.
14 “Slavery and Peonage,” pp. 14–15.
15 Ibid., p. 21.
16 Ibid., pp. 23–25.
17 Ibid., pp. 17–19.
18 “The Filipino People,” Vol. II, No. 1, p. 15, September, 1913.
19 November 1, 1913.
20 Speaker of the Assembly.